Monthly Archives: April 2012

Post navigation

No. It is under-enforcement of laws that protect people that is bad for society. For example, weak enforcement of immigration in the workplace has led to sweatshops, illegal farm workers being exploited, illegal nannies, and illegal caregivers for the elderly, recruits for organized crime and so forth. Within each of those situations we see women being treated miserably and sexually abused, why doesn’t the government crack down on that. Why pick on the prostitutes?

The Court has granted the government’s request for an extension of the 30 day stay on the date on which the living on the avails of prostitution law was to fall. This is reasonable and expected, since it was only this week that the government advised the court that they wanted to appeal our victories. However, the court will, within 30 days, unless the extension is again extended a bit, not have the excuse that they have not had a chance to familiarize themselves with the matter of whether the stay should be extended while the court decides whether to hear any appeals. It is going to get very interesting. Watch.

This afternoon, Wednesday April 25th, the government announced and served notice that it will be seeking leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the Himel decision striking down two of the three laws which the government believed worked against prostitution and for women, and which six judges agreed was unconstitutional. They also want to extend the stay on the judicial decisions, meaning keep the old laws in place for now, again. The judges said Parliament has work to do. But the government just doesn’t get it. They will. Watch.

If he does nothing about the recent court ruling striking down the prostitution laws, brothels will be legal, at least in Ontario. If he tries to appeal the recent ruling he may not get heard. If he is heard he has to convince the court to extend stays on the laws that are about to fall – keeping a bawdy house for prostitution and living on the avails of prostitution. If he does not get the stays we will have brothels by the time he gets heard, if he is heard. If he is heard he may lose. If he wins he may only win in part, in which case a conviction will be hard to get under those obsolete laws. What will he do?

Prime Minister Harper says he is tough on crime. He says he is against prostitution. Prostitution is legal, not a crime. In fact he was fighting in the courts to keep intact the laws centred on the fact that prostitution is legal. These laws were supposedly to restrict activities related to prostitution, whatever that is. Yet these laws were declared themselves unconstitutional by two courts. It will be interesting to see how he sorts all this out, now that his futile struggle to continue the policy of the Liberals on prostitution and related activities has failed.

The Prime Minister does not believe that women (or men) should sell sex. He believes prostitution is bad for society. So let’s get this straight. According to him all the pre-marital sex going on during first dates or at swinger clubs or married people cheating is no problem for him – so long as it’s free. Do I have that right? We have to lie back and think of Harper and the only reward outside of the sex itself is the thought of him? How much is that worth? Is it taxable?

Just a refresher. He can instruct the government lawyers to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. They may or may not choose to hear an appeal. They are not obligated to do so if the government seeks one. He may also instruct them to seek an extension of the 30 day stay on the dropping of the living on the avails laws. He can order the drafting of new legislation against bawdy-houses for prostitution as the court offered to let him to during the stay. He can do nothing and effectively let prostitution become an open industry – which it basically is anyway. Finally, he may wish to make prostitution illegal. It is now legal. If he does that, it will be very interesting and he may be opening cans of worms he and his lawyers never considered.

A number of police forces have already greatly curtailed their activities against indoor prostitution, whatever that is. Some supporters have told me that senior police officials have said that there is little practical purpose in enforcing laws that have already been struck down twice and were under-enforced to begin with. So even if there is an appeal of the second striking down of the laws against living on the avails and keeping a bawdy house for prostitution, there seems to be a recognition that the old laws are done for. There is also public support, of about 2 to 1, in favour of the Court of Appeal’s decision, based on polls I have read about. The silence of certain media on the issue speaks volumes. We won and we were right.

There is an important aspect about appeals that people often overlook. The time from a decision to the date the judgement takes effect is called a stay. For example the current decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal put a 30 day stay before the living on the avails law is changed and a 12 month stay on the dropping of the bawdy-house law against prostitution. An appeal to the Supreme Court will take more than 30 days so the Supreme Court must grant an extension of the stay or the law is dropped even if another appeal is heard. So decisions are about to be made soon by a number of parties, or things will change.

The issue of what legal steps remain to the parties in the prostitution challenge is complex and often technical. For one thing, the Supreme Court is not obliged to hear an appeal of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. For another, it is a very big task to mount an appeal, and not cheap. For yet another, the side appealing may actually have something to lose if the Supreme Court finds more issues with the Appeal Court decision than the appellant raised. The Federal and Ontario governments are reviewing it and so are we. Until these discussions are concluded and positions are taken I don’t want to speculate on whether the court phase of this debate on what Canada’s prostitution laws should be is over.